NEWS

Hello, torturing animals not a 'God-given right'

Published
Modified 29 May 2010, 3:11 am

vox populi small thumbnail 'Animal welfare rules do not hinder science, they support it since it is well-known that unhealthy, stressed animals will give distorted results in an experiment.'

Ali Rustam: Drug testing on animals a 'God-given right'

Hwa Shi-Hsia: Anybody who believes in God must know that God will judge people who are cruel and callous to other living beings. As a biologist, I will argue that we need animal testing but according to both religious and secular ethics, we have an obligation to make sure that the animals are treated carefully and to minimise their suffering.

Countries like the US and the UK have strict regulations to make sure that experimental animals are treated humanely. (If you look at NGOs like Peta or Greenpeace that are for banning animal testing 100 percent, they only showcase the labs that are violating those rules by abusing their animals).

Animal welfare rules do not hinder science, they support it since it is well-known that unhealthy, stressed animals will give distorted results in an experiment.

MW: It is not about whether the animal activists have valid points or not, it is about his (Malacca Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam's) sheer arrogance and total lack of compassion. Worst, he is quoting religion and spoke with full of sarcasm. This is like our PM's ‘let's make a deal' speech in Sibu... our politicians have hit rock bottom.

Yuvan: These are the kind of crude politicians we have in Malaysia - a chief minister who does not know how to express his views or opinion in a dignified manner. Anyway, can Ali Rustam enlighten the Malaysians on what else is a 'God-given right' in this country according to the BN government?

Hopeful123: No sensible person will agree that animals should be tortured. If you need human beings to volunteer then there will be many, but on conditions that they be told what the experiment is all about. You should also be ready to be sued for any breach of contract. You know very well that animals are helpless and there will be nobody to talk on their behalf.

Rubystar: Hello CM (chief minister), perhaps these animal rights groups only want the most possible humane way in using animals as guinea pigs for the advancement of science. But for you to call on them to replace these animals is a remark unbecoming of you being a CM and it clearly shows that you are really a crude and uneducated peasant to sit on the CM chair.

Please be more careful when you speak and do think about what you say when you engage them. It looks as if you are throwing your tantrums around like a primary schoolboy in challenging these people to take the place of the animals as guinea pigs.

Ida Bakar: Of course, biotech companies want to decamp here when EU countries put so much check-and-balances on animal testing. The moral zeitgeist is against animal testing except for the advancement of human health.

The question is who is going to monitor these animal experiments in Malacca? As for sourcing monkeys locally, who are going to monitor the suppliers? What depth of cruelty are they allowed to go to for in this business venture? And how much back hand is Ali Rustam and Co getting?

Penang bans sports betting

Ferdtan: Well done Penang for banning sports betting. We have enough gambling in Toto, Magnum and 3-D with their extra special draws each month.

On first reading, I thought that the PAS councilors are asking for a total ban on gambling and alcohol sales in the state but I was wrong. What they wanted is very fair - a ban on sports betting, no permit for new outlets for existing gambling and alcohol establishments, and to control and monitor Muslims involved in social ills.

Babylon: "The trio who held a press conference at the PAS operation centre in Jelutong today, said the state must consider the 'sensitivities' of Muslims and take immediate action on these vices as they were considered haram."

Can we at the same time consider the sensitivities of the Hindus and not serve beef in hotels?

Kevin Leong: As a non-Muslim (Chinese) and father of five children, I fully support the total banned of gambling and alcohol activities...

Wira: I am proud that my state started an all-out ban on trading licence for football betting outlets. Let Vincent Tan take this to the Internet. The government should not send the wrong message on such matters.

StevenForMalaysia: I'm not DAP, PKR or PAS member but I fully support this Pakatan Rakyat's move against issuing new football betting licence. Hold firm on this policy.

Fairnessforall: Well done, LGE (Lim Guan Eng). A government should make decisions and policies that are for the good of the people and not to please their cronies.

Church: Returning grant akin to siding opposition

Kgen: Bishop Hwa Yung, you knew full well that BN has given the grant in an attempt to sway Christian voters to their side. Hence isn't it true that you colluded with BN to influence voters?

You need not return the grant but you should at least donate it to charity if in your opinion returning the grant is akin to siding with the opposition. This must be the weirdest and most inventive reason for not returning the grant that I've heard.

Helen Ting: I am a Christian. I disapprove of how the government abuses its advantage of incumbency for electoral gains.

However, I am surprised by the overwhelming negative reactions towards the act of the churches accepting the allocations. They have ensured that no strings were attached to the acceptance of the allocations that they have applied for before the by-election was called. Isn't that good enough?

What about the Chinese schools which accepted the allocations? Why is there no condemnation of their moral integrity? The truth is that minorities are deprived of their rightful share of taxpayers' contribution. Perhaps I am not giving a good Christian advice, but I would just take the money and vote for the opposition.

Ferdta: I am neither for or against returning the grant back to BN government but the reason given by Bishop Hwa Yung for not returning the money is flawed.

The question here is whether the grant given by Prime Minister Najib Razak just before election is corruption or not. If it is, then the church should not in the first place accept the money. However, if the church feels that it is all right to accept the money, then say so in public.

But no, nothing was said of the legitimacy of the grant. (Instead we hear) excuses like ‘if the church did not accept the cheque, they are offending the PM' and now ‘if the church were to return the grant, they are seen to be siding with the opposition'.

It is better for the church to issue a statement that decision has been made and if they had offended anyone, they are sorry about it. Don't you think this is a better way than to defend the indefensible.


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only Malaysiakini subscribers can post comments. Over the past six months, Malaysiakinians have posted 50,000 comments. Be part of the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .